I'm assuming the IKEA frame is a 50 x 70 Ribba or Mossebo and a little of the print has been lost behind the standard mount (40 x 50).

Agreed with coach. Some good advice there. Despite being cheap prints I'd personally pay the extra and get a quality job done by MFM.

Finally got around to watching this. Incredible video.

These works not only were reviewed by Johns but inspired him to use the offset printing technique and that he was impressed with the results.

So many discreditors on here are clueless. They need someone to flash a high priced pumped up piece of art in their face for them to think it's good art.

Recieved my firstorder of 10 prints today. Packaged to perfection in a wooden crate. These are like no prints I've ever owned. I'm amazed to see works of this age in this condition. The quality of the paper is the best I've seen. Very excited about getting 4 of these hung on my walls. Anyone having doubts on these.....don't!

picked up my flag II from the post office today, no customs charge! Looks wonderful too.

Claimants may well receive refunds, especially if their paperwork lands with an employee at HM Revenue & Customs who lacks knowledge of the law and/or printmaking techniques, or who doesn't bother verifying the details.

But the above note to Chapter 97 (Works of art, collectors' pieces and antiques) posted by mla should have put an end to the discussion about the correct level of import VAT pursuant to the HMRC Integrated Tariff of the United Kingdom.

Some later posts on this subject are wild-goose chasing. The Johns facsimiles clearly don't qualify for import VAT at the reduced rate of 5%.

___________


Consequently, UK buyers who are filling out the form claiming import VAT was incorrectly charged at 20%:

(i) have not read or understood the above text; and/or
(ii) do not understand the offset lithography process; or, alternatively
(iii) do not have issues with making a false declaration to HMRC.


For the avoidance of doubt regarding point (ii), offset printing is by definition indirect. In other words, there are no "impressions produced directly". The very purpose of the blanket cylinder is to print on the substrate paper in an indirect manner. Moreover, offset printing in the 1970s would have been a photomechanical process.

OK, I don't really understand what you are trying to say. In regards to your statement: "Separately, it is a serious oversight to omit one of the most crucial distinctions: printmaking technique. The facsimiles are reproductions of editions produced by ULAE in the early 1960s. But none of the latter were offsets; they were all "proper" lithographs.

  All I can do is reiterate what has been stated by the publisher:

Tatyana Grosman started Telamon Editions Limited in 1970 as a commercial venture of Universal Limited Art Editions. It was closed upon her death in 1982. Among her initial projects was a facsimile catalogue of Jasper Johns prints published by ULAE. The format for the catalogue was 22 1/2 x 17 1/2 inches and was to be printed in an edition of 300 on the same paper as the original limited editions prints. A hand fed offset pressed was purchased in 1971 to proof and print the project. 13 facsimiles were printed on the hand-fed offset press by Bill Goldston and James V. Smith under the supervision of the artist before 1982 when the it was abandoned for the complete catalogue raisonne published in 1993. Other than their size, the paper, color and printing sequence match the original edition.

Note where it states these 13 facsimilies were printed on a hand fed offset press by Bill Goldston and James V. Simth
Please clarify what you are talking about so that we may all understand. Thanks.

You stated that, other than the facsimile disclaimer, the only differences between the original Jasper Johns print editions and the facsimiles are (i) the sizes, and (ii) the facsimiles not being signed and numbered.

My point was this is incorrect. It's misleading through omission. From your follow-up post, I get the impression you've been sidetracked by poor drafting on the ULAE website.

Leaving aside the Telamon Editions logo, the critical divide is printmaking technique. As emphasised by Pattycakes early on in this thread, the original prints are lithographs, whereas the facsimiles are offset lithographs.

There's no real comparison between lithography and offset lithography. One is an artisanal process, creating new imagery. The other is photomechanical, most often with a view to reproducing previously-existing imagery (in this case, the original prints from the early 1960s).

[If the distinction between the two isn't clear, we're talking about disparity in labour-intensity, time required, skill set and experience needed, and requisite involvement of the artist. This includes taking into account the fact that lithographic prints (contrary to offset lithographs) will be mirror images of the artwork produced on the stone or plate. And so, with lithography, the artist also needs to think in terms of image reversal while drawing or painting.]

Exactly. I think you are both right.

The print process used for originals these were based on (lithography) and the process used for the facsimiles (offset lithography) was different.

However, as discussed in one of the videos posted previously, artists generally embraced the introduction of offset lithography as it meant they did not have to draw everything backwards/in a mirror which as you can imagine was a huge PITA.

So although John's used lithography for the originals of these facsimiles, originals he produced after this time were produced using offset lithography.

couldn't have said it any better myself. 

This thread is by far the most (dare i say only) interesting thing on here at the moment.

The discussion is great, the subject fascinating, covering so many aspects of art and multiples, both the facts and the gray areas.

The participants are polite mostly, thorough in their explanations, clear about their intentions, which makes it such a worthwhile read

I wish this whole place was like this...

I am receiving all my JJ prints tomorrow, they will be framed simply and handed out as gifts for family and friends. I can't wait

Again just take some time to read what he said. I dont hear anyone stating anything to your point about Johns. I cant say anything about the relevance or influence these prints had on Johns, I have the same information as everyone else watched the same video. I think we have clarified multiple times the facts. I am not one to guess or push my opinion on what these could or could have meant to the artist as I wasnt there and I havent read anything stating for or against that argument. So No I am not telling you anything of the sort.

I had watched that excellent video, and read through this entire thread. And, to be clear, as with Rauschenberg, De Kooning, Pollock and other big namess of their generation, I'm familiar with Johns' work — including the different mediums and processes he used and continues to use.

On the basis of your above post, there's no material disagreement between us.

But that post is also a straw man. As referred to by Poesia, you are arguing issues I never raised.

My comments were specifically on the distinctions between (i) the original print editions by Johns in the early 1960s and (ii) the later reproductions of those original prints (i.e. the facsimiles) — because Poly Mindset had overlooked the key difference of lithograph vs offset lithograph.

A separate but related point was that — based on current, applicable rules and regulations in the UK — the ULAE facsimiles (having been produced indirectly, via a photomechanical process) are expressly excluded from the 5% reduced rate of import VAT.

If you believe anything I've stated is false or misleading, I'm happy to discuss.

First off all Met, thank you for clarifying your point for me. I understand now exactly the point you are making. To all other members, Met is just defining why these prints don't qualify for the lower VAT and it's clear that he's not making any argument as to the value, historically and monetarily of the prints. Although I disagree with the way the VAT system is defining definitions I think we all know that most governments are going to try to screw you whenever they can.
Additionally, point taken that the offset press was a turning point in the way Johns produced his prints. I think it's just progress in motion which to me is understandable. However, I don't think offset lithography completely removes the "artisan" from the process and I know nobody is really arguing that point, so let's not all get crazy. Although Johns may or may not have had anything to do with the making of the plates there is no denying that he was overseeing and I'm sure had input as to the whole process...after all they were his prints. I personally think he probably had a lot to do with the making of these prints for the simple fact that this was his jumping of point and this offset process had a complete influence on the way he would move forward with the rest of his career.
Bringing us to Murrke03's exact point. If from the initial point of these prints, where the offset process was introduced to Johns and moving forward utilizing offset lithography for the rest of his official lithos does this then remove his official lithos from a discounted VAT and if not then how can one reason that these prints cannot receive a discounted VAT because they were done the exact same way. The only distinguishing factor is the disclaimer and the size and not being signed and numbered...... Fascinating argument, isn't it?
Now, the elephant in the room is, who does Met really work for?? Just kidding. I think the proof is going to be in the pudding as they say and when all is said and done, I as well as many members here would love to know if anyone after arguing their point as logically as it is with the government, receives a refund. Once again my personal opinion is that logic doesn't run our governments, money does. Please keep us posted.